To: chuck_the_tv_out
How many intermediate forms do they have? Oh yeah, NONE.
Here is an intermediate or transitional. Note its position in the chart below:
Fossil: KNM-ER 3733Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)
Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)
Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)
Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)
Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)
Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)
Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)
Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)
See original source for notes:
7 posted on Thursday, 29 January 2009 07:00:53 by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
---
To: gwilhelm56
Let’s call it what it is, Satanism. That’s where it comes from - Satan- and he’s who they will spend eternity with for blaspheming against God. It’s good to know that God is just. I’d love to see the smirks fall from their faces when they find out what their eternal future is going to be.
:)
21 posted on Thursday, 29 January 2009 08:08:40 by ToGodBeTheGlory ("Darwinism" is Satanism.)
---
To: Coyoteman
23 posted on Thursday, 29 January 2009 08:10:45 by mgstarr ("Some of us drink because we're not poets." Arthur (1981))
---
To: ToGodBeTheGlory
Let’s call it what it is, Satanism. That’s where it comes from - Satan- and he’s who they will spend eternity with for blaspheming against God. It’s good to know that God is just. I’d love to see the smirks fall from their faces when they find out what their eternal future is going to be.
This is a science thread. Religious dogma has no role in science, nor on this thread. Please take it elsewhere.
28 posted on Thursday, 29 January 2009 09:07:40 by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
---
To: Coyoteman
“This is a science thread. Religious dogma has no role in science, nor on this thread. Please take it elsewhere.”
This is a Conservative website. Evo-Atheism has no role in conservatism, nor on any thread on this board other than to show the depths that Satan will go to spread his lies. Please take your NEA-loving cult elsewhere.
37 posted on Thursday, 29 January 2009 09:34:21 by ToGodBeTheGlory ("Darwinism" is Satanism.)
---
To: ToGodBeTheGlory
“This is a science thread. Religious dogma has no role in science, nor on this thread. Please take it elsewhere.”
This is a Conservative website. Evo-Atheism has no role in conservatism, nor on any thread on this board other than to show the depths that Satan will go to spread his lies. Please take your NEA-loving cult elsewhere.
Are you suggesting that evolution, a science which fully follows the scientific method, is not permitted in conservatism, or on this website?
38 posted on Thursday, 29 January 2009 09:39:14 by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
---
To: Coyoteman
I’m not just suggesting, I’m saying that evolution is not science and is of Satan. It has no place in Conservatism.
43 posted on Thursday, 29 January 2009 10:13:02 by ToGodBeTheGlory ("Darwinism" is Satanism.)
---
To: ToGodBeTheGlory; Coyoteman
I’m not just suggesting, I’m saying that evolution is not science and is of Satan. It has no place in Conservatism.
Feel free to demonstrate all of the above.
44 posted on Thursday, 29 January 2009 10:16:45 by Gumlegs
---
To: Gumlegs
Satan has everything to do with this thread, because the thread is about Darwinism and evo-atheism, which are of Satan. It matters not how long one has been posting here, it matters what they have been posting. I have been posting the Word, and evo-atheists have been posting the words of the Deceiver.
Remember, God is the final Admin.
45 posted on Thursday, 29 January 2009 10:19:03 by ToGodBeTheGlory ("Darwinism" is Satanism.)
---
To: ToGodBeTheGlory
You keep posting that, but you’ve never posted a word as to why we should believe you.
46 posted on Thursday, 29 January 2009 10:20:08 by Gumlegs
---
To: Gumlegs
Read the Word. God wrote down everything we needed to know. It’s written in plain English for even the slow to understand.
48 posted on Thursday, 29 January 2009 10:24:24 by ToGodBeTheGlory ("Darwinism" is Satanism.)
---
To: ToGodBeTheGlory
Please stop posting religious dogma on this science thread.
Your belief has no role in science.
49 posted on Thursday, 29 January 2009 10:24:44 by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
---
To: Coyoteman
God created science just like He created everything else. Got news for you. God and freedom of religion take no back seat to anyone on this forum. Freedom of religion reigns supreme in this land. If you don’t like it, shove it.
Jim
50 posted on Thursday, 29 January 2009 10:25:50 by Jim Robinson
---
To: ToGodBeTheGlory
You made some assertions. You've just posted you can't be bothered backing them up.
If "God wrote down everything we needed to know," as you just posted, what are you doing on the internet? It's not mentioned in the Bible.
51 posted on Thursday, 29 January 2009 10:27:17 by Gumlegs
---
To: Jim Robinson
You may post anything you wish to this thread (or any other). Coyoteman lives in his own little world.
In my world science is not equated with satanism.
However, your world is increasingly becoming overrun with extreme fringe elements who do equate science with satanism.
If you would rather keep those fringe posters, and discourage the scientists from posting here, then fringe posters is what you''ll end up with.
54 posted on Thursday, 29 January 2009 10:44:58 by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
---
To: metmom; All
Coyoteman’s been banned.
64 posted on Thursday, 29 January 2009 10:56:31 by CE2949BB (Fight.)
---
To: tpanther; Coyoteman
Why pick on evolution then?
"I can't think of anything that is so insecure surrounding gravity (etc.) today, that when a concerned group of parents places a sticker on a textbook reminding students as in the example in evolution is mere theory, and not fact, they get sued, can you?"
I hope the lawsuit was thrown out, since everything is a "theory" and its impossible to prove a theory, only to disprove it. Truth has little bearing on utility. Take a falsly geocentric view of the universe and navigating a boat by the stars and the assumption that everything revolves around the Earth still works fine.
Oh, and btw, Edmund Burke never actually wrote that tagline - it is oft attributed to him and may well be something that he might have said but there is nothing in his works or those of his contemporaries to suggest that he did. So much for truth.
RIP Coyoteman
441 posted on Friday, 30 January 2009 01:07:49 by Anatheme
---
To: Coyoteman; metmom; Jim Robinson; All
Excuse me... science BEGAN as the observation of the natural world and the wonders of God’s creation, thus to gain understanding so to draw man closer to his Creator, and his eternal destiny.
Thus in keeping the above context in sight, to make the statement that “science is not equated with satanism” [sic] yet simultaneously extol the supposed virtues of a thought system whose cornerstones rest on the philosophical postulates of secular humanism, which in fact denies the existence of God, is by definition a “false” or “diabolical” mission. Here is the reasoning behind my assertion:
Diabolic:
The word “diabolic” derives from the Greek word “diaballo” meaning to “pass beyond” or “over”, from the root dia - “through” and, as a causal accusative, “with the aid of”. Later, diaballo acquired a more sense - for example “to set against” (Aristotle) although it was sometimes used (as diabolos) when a ‘bad’ or ‘false’ sense was meant, as for example, a false accusation.
Devil:
The early forms of the English word devil are regarded as deriving from the Gothic (the Old English divul) ‘diabaulus’ which came from the Latin ‘diabolus’. However, the Old English ‘deofel’ and kindred words like the Old Frisian ‘diovel’ could be derived from the suffix ‘fel’, a variant of ‘fell’ meaning fierce, savage, or wild. Then the original form, ‘deofel’, would mean the ‘fierce/ savage/ wild’ god. There is some justification for the use of the Latin prefix in this manner - e.g. ‘deodand’, which occurs in 12th century English. In this context ‘fell’ (from the Latin ‘fello’) was often used to describe both a wild, fierce person (such as an outlaw) and a brave man or warrior. Much later, the word passed into general usage as ‘felon’ - with a moral sense.
Satan:
This is often regarded as from the Hebrew, meaning accuser. However, the Hebrew is itself derived from the Greek aitia - “an accusation” - qv. Aeschylus: aitiau ekho. The Greek form became corrupted to the Hebrew ‘Satan’ - whence also ‘Shaitan’. In Greek of the classical period aitia and diabole were often used for the same thing, particularly when a ‘bad’ or ‘false’ sense was required. Hebrew is essentially in its origins a corrupt form of Greek, with some other influences thrown in.
Evil:
The word ‘evil’ derives from the Gothic ‘ubils’ which meant a ‘going beyond’ (the due measure)
To be diabolical is to be false. Hence, to connect science with a philosophical set of principles that sets as its objective a denial of the metaphysical realm science sought to explain is to “pass over and beyond” the purpose of science “with the aid of” a counter philosophy, so to cast science in a light alien to its origins. Such an endeavor would rightly be defined as “anti-science” or “counter-science” or more precisely a “false science” that asserts itself to establish a new paradigm… one that “sets against” God, and works to usurp God’s authority while simultaneously envying the power of God. Thus we have a system of thought that is wholly foreign to science but desires to subordinate science under its realm, rather than be subordinated to the original intent of science: the study of God’s creation.
This new paradigm asserts itself better, bigger, and more rational than belief in God… thus it “goes beyond” God, and therefore may accurately be called “evil” (Gothic: ‘ubils’)
The new paradigm asserts that man descended – “evolved” - from wild beasts Thus it is “devilish” in its philosophy, and false in its principles (Greek: ‘aitia’ and ‘diabole’).
(How is it possible to hold that man may simultaneously descend from, i.e.: move downward, and yet “evolve” or move upward?)
So, in fact this new paradigm is false… but for reason of envy of God’s power of creation it is more than false… it is a lie, for all lies derive from pride and envy. This new paradigm asserts that man descended from wild beasts, and so its philosophy may accurately be described as “devilish.” This new paradigm “accuses” all religion as being the bane of humanity, and so it may accurately be described as satanic (Greek ‘aitia’). Since this new paradigm:
1. Is an unfaithful or “false” copy of the original (diabolic)
2. Declares that order comes from disorder without intervention of intelligence (evil)
3. Declares man evolved from beast (devilish)
4. Accuses all religions to be the bane of humanity. God does not exist (satanic)
5. Asserts the above, having envy its motive, and thus is based in false pride, not science (diabolic)
So, your original statement “science is not equated with satanism” … needs a slight modification: ‘true science is not equated with Satanism’ … whereas that which presently poses as “science” does indeed derive from the diabolical, is devilish in philosophy, is evil in its nature, is a lie, and satanic in its objectives.
By a trial of the objective facts the accused is guilty. The prosecution rests its case.
499 posted on Friday, 30 January 2009 04:34:42 by TCH (Another redneck clinging to guns and religion)
---
To: Lurking Libertarian
God told us everything we need to know in plain English in the KJV Bible. We don’t need to know about the internets to get to Heaven.
561 posted on Friday, 30 January 2009 07:58:50 by ToGodBeTheGlory ("Darwinism" is Satanism.)
---
To: wendy1946; varmintman
I’m guessing that in 100 years he’ll be a footnote in history books, while the real scientists will have come to terms with the electrical nature of the universe. Some interesting things at this website:
http://www.holoscience.com/
635 posted on Friday, 30 January 2009 10:53:15 by ToGodBeTheGlory ("Darwinism" is Satanism.)
---
To: GourmetDan
Have fun answering this.
What force is capable of moving the massive Sun around a much less massive Earth while leaving the Earth motionless?
What Biblical passages do you think support Geocentricism?
1,188 posted on Thursday, 5 February 2009 10:21:48 by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
---
To: allmendream
The answer is quite clear. The force in question is God.
1,197 posted on Thursday, 5 February 2009 12:21:01 by ToGodBeTheGlory ("Darwinism" is Satanism.)
---
49 comments:
I did a blogpost a short time ago, titled "Glauben heist nicht wissen" a sometimes heard saying. It roughly means: "to believe means not knowing"
I think some people thought you didn't catch that message and needed to explain it to you over and over by their own good example ;-)
bhd.
Hi Zoe,
here is something interesting...
Vatican Sides With Darwin
News Article Written by Alan Bellows
Charles Darwin In a press conference yesterday (November 7th, 2005 at 9:58 pm), Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, made it perfectly clear that the Catholic church does not consider Genesis and Evolution to be mutually exclusive. Instead, he underscored the church's belief that a Creator is responsible for orchestrating the universe, and that the specifics of how fall into the realm of science.
From the article: "The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".
This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".
His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.
Article on news.com.au
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html
NOTE link is now dead, but see item No. 57 (as in 57 Varieties of Heinz) on this site...
http://www.healthypages.co.uk/forum/archive/index.php?f-53.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/dzcgl4
Also see "America doesn’t believe in evolution" (1st Article on page)
A study conducted by Jon Miller from Michigan State University of 32 European countries, the United States and Japan has revealed that the US is the second most unwilling nation to accept evolution as fact. In the only country in which evolution has been politicised, the percentage of people who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45% in 1985 to only 40% in 2005.
Many attribute the cause to the large fundamentalist Christian population in the US. While Catholics, European Protestants and so-called mainstream US Protestants consider the biblical account of creation as a metaphor, fundamentalists take the Bible literally, leading them to believe that the Earth and humans were created only 6000 years ago.
http://www.pixelbomb.com/blog/tag/intelligent_design
or
http://tinyurl.com/bapdts
The article that immediately follows that on the same page, (Second article on page) refers to the "Religion of FSM" (of which I have to be a member seeing as it is from Family ;-) shows that there is more to life than conventional religion...
more under http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=96#more-96
or
http://tinyurl.com/algyaq
and the original article about the Vatican can be fond as third article on the http://www.pixelbomb.com/blog/tag/intelligent_design page
or
http://tinyurl.com/bapdts
Here a different article/approach from the www.damninteresting.com website...
Of course when it suits them, the Americans, (such as the repression of Black people, poor, etc. in the 1920s) it suddenly became acceptable to accept Darwin in the Southern US states...
Eugenics and You
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=962#more-962
or
http://tinyurl.com/bovl3q
on a completely different subject but from same site...
The Birth Control of Yesteryear
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=851#more-851
or
http://tinyurl.com/dewqkb
Regards
Petra
p.s. drop me a mail with an update on how things went (or are going) with the contact I gave you in the GRO. You can delete this p.s. before publishing if you want.
Confirmation bias. Evidence is plausible if you agree with it, and not plausible if you don't.
The difficulty is that when a theory (evolution, anthro-global-warming, whatever) gets politicized, people will support or reject it without much concern over whether the evidence actually supports it.
I think this says it all: http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13062613&source=most_commented
Some interesting talking points for the unscientific can also be found here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html
I stand with the rationalists - which puts me in the minority in many countries (especially this one). Oh well.
I've posted comments to your previous blog post.
You know, now that I think about it, the Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence Theory describes male-to-female transsexualism better than any other theory. You have positive assertions that are supported by a large body of literature--just look at how well-sourced this Wiki article is, and most of the sources support BBL Theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanchard,_Bailey,_and_Lawrence_theory#Research_comparing_homosexual_with_non-homosexual_transsexuals
These sources give strong, definite support of the BBL Theory, while demonstrating key concepts of it. Other theories, on the other hand, well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiology_of_Transsexualism
(among others)
You know, "theories" pushed by the transsexuals themselves that have little support in the literature; slamming Bailey, et al., over whether he might have done X thing with Y transsexual, while ignoring the large number of studies he has performed confirming his theory; sources that sorta prove the transsexual's "theories," but are sorta maybe, could be; and on and on. It seems that the Conway/James group is a bunch of smokescreen artists who don't want to accept that maybe the BBL Theory is true, because it would hurt the perfect images they have of themselves: I say to them, "Get over yourselves!" Now I know what Bailey is talking about with regards to widespread narcissism in the transsexual community.
Since BBL theory says I can't exist, I'm loath to give it credence.
As long as you're willing to not account for 90% of observed biological phenomena, and theorise that 90% of experimental subjects are lying and their accounts to be discarded, you can pretty much "prove" anything.
"My theory trumps your experience" as is commonly said.
Hi, Zoe.
I just read in the NYT about the terrible wildfires sweeping Australia at this time.
Could it be the wrath of God?!
Seriously, though, I hope that you and your family have not been affected.
Hi Nica!
That you can spare a thought for us at such a tumultuous time is most appreciated.
We've not been affected yet. We expect to be. With conditions like this, it's almost inevitable.
We've taken some precautions, and if things go pear-shaped, will be taking more. It's shaping up like 2003 again. As long as there aren't any strong winds, we should be OK though. Spectators rather than participants.
They've got it bad in Victoria though. And there's not a lot that can be done about it other than to evacuate.
Zoe,
I do not think that the intersexed are within the scope of BBL Theory, just as abiogenesis is not within the scope of evolutionary theory. The same with FtM's: They are not within the scope of BBL Theory.
As for experience, it is subjective, and cannot be reliably measured: Even if an MtF wanted to be a girl or hated being a boy from an early age, it is not a measure or a predictor of anything, but even just a belief to go back to when one is older and upon which to develop an entire system of rationalization.
One study "The Measurement of Sexual Arousal in Postoperative Male-to-Female Transsexuals ..." shows just how male the transsexual's brains are even after the surgery. His study provides controls and makes accurate measurements of the sexual reactions of the subjects, providing further support for the positive assertion that men cannot be bisexual, while all women are, and shows that the sexual reaction in transsexuals are different from women and that again the transsexuals were more like the men, in that their arousals were category-specific, as opposed to in general.
Again, alternative theories rely too much on maybe, could be, would be if, while BBL Theory relies on hard data and accurate measurements. All of the arguments against BBL Theory remind me of the way creationists attack the theory of evolution, in that these creationist-like people think that by disproving BBL Theory they prove their own, that by attacking BBL Theory's proponents they prove it wrong (look at the way the Conway/James crowd launches vicious ad hominem attacks on Bailey, for example), they believe BBL Theory is wrong based on matters of faith (such as by having faith in their understanding their experience well enough to say that their perception of their experience is a reliable source of fact), and they offer little or scant evidence in return for their own theories, which are based mostly on faith (such as the "I have a female brain" talk).
This is what bolsters BBL Theory and shows the weaknesses of the alternative theories.
@sumptos devil s advocate, the BBL theory doesn't avoid the problem of subjective experience. In fact it has the far worse problem that not only is the posited etiology based on the transsexuals' subjective experiences, it's based on the researchers' own substitutions for the transsexuals' self-reports of their subjective experiences, and the researchers' interpretations of those fabricated subjective experiences, which have been fabricated and interpreted specifically so as to support their theory.
In order to be considered scientific, a theory has to be falsifiable. Given that subjective experiences are... well... entirely subjective, how would one go about falsifying such a theory?
justme,
Do you have any examples where BBL attempt to substitute their thinking for the transsexual's? Also, do you have specific proof of the transsexuals' experiences?
It’s written in plain English for even the slow to understand.
ToGodBeTheGlory has to be an atheist troll.
Yes and yes. Just look through the archives.
The only objective measurements in BBL are by the use of a plethysmograph.
However the control group for that was not natal women who had had genital reconstruction, but those who had not. The data was therefore useless for trying to form conclusions about correlation. And as the plethy's measurements in other contexts have been found to be about 25% better than random chance, the whole dataset is iffy.
fMRI is more reliable, and has results contrary to BBL theory in most cases.
Zoe,
Thank you for your responses.
"And as the plethy's measurements in other contexts have been found to be about 25% better than random chance, the whole dataset is iffy."
Do you have a source?
"However the control group for that was not natal women who had had genital reconstruction, but those who had not."
In that case, the blood flow in natural vaginas is purported to be higher than in artificial ones?
"fMRI is more reliable, and has results contrary to BBL theory in most cases."
In the archives I have seen that, but isn't still at the maybe, could be, would be if stage?
http://freerepublic.com/tag/by:togodbetheglory/index?tab=comments;brevity=full;options=no-change
He seems to be a strong, consistent believer.
Athena - see Brotto LA et al.
Psychophysiological and subjective sexual arousal to visual sexual stimuli in new women.
Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology, December 2005; 26(4): 237-244.
Quote:
In conclusion, the findings from this study suggest that the vaginal photoplethysmograph can- not be considered a viable technique to study the blood flow patterns in the neovagina during conditions of sexual arousal.
From the DSM-IV:
Penile plethysmography has been used in research settings to assess various paraphilias by measuring an individual's sexual arousal in response to visual and auditory stimuli. The reliability and validity of this procedure in clinical assessment have not been well established, and clinical experience suggests that subjects can simulate response by manipulating mental images. DSM-IV, Paraphilias, at p524.
There's a large amount of data at Plethysmograph: a disputed device. While this article may be justly accused of political bias, the references it gives cannot.
sumptos,
I also wanted to point out that the BBL theory gives two entirely different etiologies for young, male-oriented transwomen and older, female-oriented transwomen, while ignoring any other combination of young, old, male-, female-, or bi-oriented transwomen. Nor does it account for cross-gender-identified pre-pubescent children, transmen, or intersex people who identify as the other sex from what they were assigned to at birth. Nor does it suggest a plausible mechanism for the highly-elevated incidence of MtF transsexualism among sons whose mothers took DES during their pregnancy.
On the other hand, the theory that the brain is simply wired before birth to expect to be in a certain kind of body, which on relatively rare occasions isn't a close enough match the actual body, leading to a constant dissonance, does neatly account for all these cases, and is consistent with all available data, nor is it contradicted by the studies you cited above in support of the BBL theory which don't address it in any way (whether or not those studies have any merit is a separate question). I think it's pretty clear which way Occam's Razor cuts in this case.
ToGodBeTheGlory has to be an atheist troll.
The comment about the "Electric Universe" theory is a dead giveaway. He let the mask slip then, but no-one picked it up.
From no particular area of the sky, I pull another possible explanation for the observed "widespread narcissism in the transsexual community".
First lets assume that the "transsexual community" concerned are seeking / have sought treatment and therefore the people doing the observing of the transsexual community are psychiatric professionals.
The task of the psychiatric professional is not to "treat" the disorder - HRT and surgical intervention are responsible for the symptomatic relief - but to diagnose the condition such that other medical professionals may treat it. Diagnosis is difficult, since there is, as yet, no test / scan / lab that can indicate the presence or absence of transsexualism. Therefore the diagnosis is a negative (i.e. The patient suffers no mental disorders that could cause the observed symptoms, therefore [by process of elimination] the patient should be treated as if they are transsexual).
Given the life changing effects of such treatment and (particularly) the risk of the psychiatrist being sued for a false positive (yet not for a false negative), psychiatrists assessing patients for TS tend to put people 'through the wringer' just a bit.
Often so do patient's families... "but that blue shirt that you so liked when you were five"... "you did play with that toy truck"... "Were you sexually aroused by that pretty blouse?"... "but 'nice' women don't wear jeans all the time"...
The point being that the very nature of the questions being asked of a TS patient, mainly by the assessing psychiatrists, but also in some cases by family, friends etc. lead to a large and probably unhealthy amount of self-examination / introspection and the psychiatric "barrier" implicit in such an accusatory model, leads to a not insignificant amount of defensiveness also (the perception, if not the reality being that any slight or imagined gender infraction will result in withdrawal of treatment). The net result of psychiatric assessment for transsexualism then is a highly increased sense of how every personal action, interaction and thought reflects ones gender identity - i.e. narcissism.
This effect is not unknown in broader psychiatric / psychological circles whereby patients seem to organise their entire mental (and real) lives around their 'disorder'. - Even broader (though perhaps not less of a disorder): How many new converts to a religion see every deficit in their pre-religion lives as being due to a lack of $Deity acting in their lives and every positive in their post-religion lives as being due to them accepting the role of $Deity in their lives? - [To these, I also say, "Get over yourselves"].
Just like half-way through a math exam, the candidate is, quite reasonably, solely focused on how well they are doing answering math questions, half-way through a (gender) real-life test, the candidate is, quite reasonably, solely focused on how well they are doing presenting as their target gender. It is unfortunate that a math exam lasts three hours (in solitary silence) and a real-life test lasts a year (or more) in the real world, and that the rest of us have to live with the candidate's focus on their performance in their real-life test but I'd argue that it's not entirely their fault. The corollary, of course, is that lessenign the scrutiny, both professional (psychiatric) and personal (family etc.) of transsexual patients would effect a significant decrease in the observed narcissism within the transsexual community.
Nb41
You would expect the same effect after treatment, and the scrutiny being over.
The only problems then are the various legal issues and complexities. Moreover, a lot of the energy that was spent on self is sometimes redirected to helping others. And sometimes not, 9 in 10 fade into the woodwork after transition. Even then, 30 or more years afterwards, their past can catch up to them in unexpected ways.
SDA, try this interessting read:
http://www.intersexualite.org/investigation.html
The greatest sign of how biased CAMH/Norhwestern is, is how the try to descredit the "female essence narrative" (a label given by them), not the "sexed essence narrative" which would include transmen.
Anne Lawrence, I think is what she says, a perfect example of an autogyniphilic. There are many texts on her own side, many written some years before "the man who would be queen" that support that idea (i.e. a text named "I want my body back"). But to ease the shame attached to that, she tries to label a hugh part of the transsexual population the same way.
How come this discussion moved from christian faith vs. science to BBL?
How come this discussion moved from christian faith vs. science to BBL?
BHD, you were probably being rhetorical, but SDA has an annoying habit of posting TS questions / comments to any handy-looking blog entry. Even posting meta-posts (i.e. the one on this thread telling everyone that they'd posted comments somewhere else on this blog) in order to get a bite.
It's kind of annoying really and combine with the apparent one-track-mind SDA exhibits, leads me to think that SDA is merely a somewhat subtle troll.
Perse
OK, what about the fact that autogynephilia is referred to in the DSM credibly and that its proponents often sit on important boards, such as the DSM V board and the WPATH councils? Clearly, there is strong credibility there?
sumptos, it's rather ironic that you take Conway and James to task for supposedly employing the ad hominem fallacy, then you turn around and use the argument-from-authority fallacy.
I find these things to be evidence of these people's political acumen, not of the validity of their theories. I judge those on their own merits. Science after all is about falsifiable theories backed by reproducible evidence, not personal credibility.
Justme,
"I find these things to be evidence of these people's political acumen, not of the validity of their theories. I judge those on their own merits. Science after all is about falsifiable theories backed by reproducible evidence, not personal credibility."
It seems more like their ideas are treated as credible. I do not know the in-depth of the topic myself, so I trust in the scientific community involved to have their stuff together. When I see one side attack the other as much as I've seen the Conway/James group attack the BBL group, and yet the BBL group (who are actually scientists/physicists themselves) continues to enjoy credibility among the scientists/physicians who actually do work in the field, it makes me wonder about the credibility of the Conway/James group.
Again, it's like creationism.
sumptos, influence and position generally depend more on political acumen than the merit, or lack thereof, of one's work. Having such influence or position can lend unwarranted credibility to a researcher's shoddy or questionably-scientific work, and even their unsubstantiated views.
Research in transsexualism is a tiny subfield of the already-small scientific ghetto of sexology, and those outside it are unlikely to have occasion to actually read these researchers' papers. In fact, those in the field outside the Bailey-Blanchard-Lawrence clique do have serious issues with their theories and methodologies. Those three, along with their sometime-collaborator and personal friend Zucker, who edits the journal of sexology in which they all publish, attained their positions and influence as much by default as anything else, for lack of others in the field with political aspirations.
In spite of their apparent position and influence, in my personal experience with actual practicing clinical professionals in the field, BBL's theories are not considered credible, if they are considered at all. I understand this is not universally true, but it's been the case in my personal experience without exception.
BBL's theory is rather like creationism, in the sense of being unfalsifiable and therefore of no scientific merit. And their tactic of presenting research "demonstrating" that their most vocal and influential critics are lying narcissistic perverts--a form of ad-hominem attack, in case you hadn't noticed (more specifically, an instance of 'poisoning the well')--does parallel the creationists' method of casting evolutionists as being in league with Satan. But somehow I don't think that's what you meant.
sumptos, you're a long-time regular reader and contributor to this site, so I have trouble believing you're not already fully aware of all this. I'll be generous and assume you're fulfilling the role implied by your pseudonym, rather than simply being a somewhat sophisticated troll as others have suggested.
> OK, what about the fact that autogynephilia is referred to in the DSM
Thats is really ease. The (only) persons who have created and value the BBL Theorie are on the other hand always on the workgroup for the DSM.
Its a matter of power, not of science. A lot of therapists protestet against their nominations, by the way
Justme,
What I don't know is if it's really that way.
Thank you and Zoe for your time spent answering my questions. I'm sorry for posting off-topic on the wrong blog posts and will stop doing it, as it it is Zoe's blog and I respect that.
Thank you.
Bad hair days,
Thank you for your response. I can see the therapists being right in protesting those appointments, but I can also see them being wrong. And that's my problem.
My question is, How do you know? I never have any idea, only the words of both sides to go off of.
Hello SDA. Thats quite simple. Read a bit about the persons in questions, backgrounds, especially their methods. And you'll see quite fast how they produce theorie out of thin air. I.g. Baily: He came to the conclusion, there is only homosexually man and heterosexual man - no bisexual man. He backed this up with a study where he checked reactions to visual sexual stimulation. More reaction to homosexual copulation was chalked up to homosexuality, more stimulation by heterosexual action on the screen was chalked up to heterosexuality. Only an even reaction to both stimuli would have been chalked up to bisexuality. Thus he asumed: Gay, straigt or lying. In complete ignorance of the Kinseyscale.
When you read the investigation from OII you'll see, that they tried to flaw Swaabs postmortem brainresearch. Non of them being trained in that area, and Swaab could point out their false traits. But still, based on that counter they say braindevelopmental causes are proven false. Now with the fMRT their are more prove of them claiming HRT changed the brain is completely ridicules. It was done on pre HRT, but diagnosed transexual women.
Theres more to it, but to less time and to less space here
It seems more like their ideas are treated as credible. I do not know the in-depth of the topic myself, so I trust in the scientific community involved to have their stuff together. When I see one side attack the other as much as I've seen the Conway/James group attack the BBL group, and yet the BBL group (who are actually scientists/physicists themselves) continues to enjoy credibility among the scientists/physicians who actually do work in the field, it makes me wonder about the credibility of the Conway/James group.
A few random points:
"When I see one side attack the other..." I think in the main, this is a good (probably why it's so common), quick method of judging veracity - sort of like the first person to say they smell something bad is often actually the one who farted. Problem is, it isn't only one side attacking the other. Remember that the "other side" are made up of psychiatrists, psychologists, sexologists etc. They get to do a lot of pointing fingers and attacking behind a) closed doors and b) professional privilege. Psychiatrists can (and do) refuse to authorise treatment until you admit (probably falsely) that your motives are largely sexual. Any argument given behind closed doors is treated condescendingly ("You can think whatever you like, but you're nuts. You must be nuts as this is a psych office so only one person in this room can be sane and I'm sitting in the big chair") or passed off as a lack of insight, unwillingness to cooperate with treatment etc. So the BBL side (and psychs in general) get to mercilessly attack transsexuals, and the transsexuals can't fight back. - In private, they risk their treatment and have to endure even more condescension than they already signed up for. In public, they're dismissed as having an agenda.
Given that psychiatrists form the barrier to treatment for transsexual people, they have (and sadly often take) the opportunity to substitute their own interpretation for what the patient is actually saying..["Does the thought of being a woman turn you on?"..."I find the thought of being male so disgusting that I can't get aroused unless I think of myself as a woman."..."So you're autogynephilic"..."Erm..no? Just a woman."..."I can't let patients who lie to me | have such poor insight into their condition take HRT"..."OK, so I'm autogynephilic"]
Some time ago (think Europe in the 1800's), the germ theory of disease was still in its infancy and a medic by the name of Ignaz Semmelweis had noticed a correlation between interns doing autopsies before helping women give birth and deaths due to "childbed fever". To cut a long story short, one of his colleagues eventually had him committed to a mental hospital where he was beaten and died within a fortnight.
Some years later, developing technology allowed microbes to be seen and Dr. Semmelweis is now regarded as one of the fathers of germ theory.
So the scientific community does not always have its stuff together *right now* (if we knew the answer already, it wouldn't be research...). What the scientific method does provide with, is a means to (eventually) get to the right answer. Psychology may make some people feel better, but it is not science, psychiatry is only marginally better.
Psychiatry (and "mind stuff" in general) is a bit like medicine was a century ago - things can't be tested / visualised like we expect in medicine. For example, it's only in the last couple of years that it's been determined that the brains of schizophrenics are definitively different from controls - and they still can't determine correlation vs. causation. The researchers doing the fMRI studies and genetic assays have only *had* those tools available in the last decade or so - give them some time [My prediction: 50 years hence, BBL theory will be regarded as as much of a quaint idea as epileptics being inhabited by the devil]. Look at how Freudian analysis was seen decades ago vs. todays *giggle* comments about *chortle* your mother *gasp, chortle*.
Back to science, I call Occam. BBL theory does not describe transmen, does not describe those with other intersex conditions (no matter how "minor"), doesn't account for the strong increase in the prevalence of MtFs observed in people whose mothers took DES during pregnancy... So now we seem to be evoking another category...(There are transmen, transwomen and autogynephiliacs. Autogynephiliacs start off in a [mostly] male body, transition and end up in a [mostly] female body, exactly like transwomen do... The difference is, erm, *what* exactly?). In practice therefore, "autogynephilic" seems to be just a (strongly politicised) term to describe some subset of transwomen in a derogatory fashion. For this reason alone, the term should die a rapid and merciful death. In addition, it is descriptive but not explanatory (Just how do some people but not others develop this baffling condition? How do you tell the difference between an autogynephiliac and a transsexual woman?). We need some other theory to account for transmen and (some?) transwomen... Such a theory would necessarily contain the difference between transwomen and (the subset of visible transwomen who are) autogynephiles. This diference is as yet, unbounded - it could range from zero to the moon. The benefit of maintaining such difference in the real world, if both groups benefit from the same medical treatment (i.e. transition) seems questionable - we're back to a politicised term that is used to denigrate one group of people and to spread confusion.
Again back to science, Conway is a computer scientist of some renown. If you are disregarding (or dismissing, or degrading) her opinion, because she is transsexual (i.e. assuming her analysis is flawed because of her transsexuality), why can't the other side have a similarly setup (noisier?) bandwagon? Looking at things naively, one could suggest that Bailey et al. have their professional turf / reputation to protect whereas Conway has already been successfully treated and is now batting on behalf of others. Ergo Bailey et al. are more likely to fight dirty / distort findings / ask leading questions (of patients), simply because they have a greater vested interest in things turning out their way. Note also, that by definition psychiatrists / psycholgists are skilled at (subtly) manipulating people... computer scientists, *cough* perhaps not.
SDA, I still disrespect your habit of disregarding the new studies Zoe posts here on her blog. Sooner or later (if not yesterday) the cumulative sum of these studies will outweigh BBL theory (talking about ideas has been around for thousands of years, the technology to start testing some of them hasn't even been around for a decade). I'm a little uncertain about BBL continuing "to enjoy credibility among the scientists/physicians who actually do work in the field" and I don't think that you've made a case against BBL "enjoying credibility among (vocal) BBL proponents and their friends". Autogynephilia is not mentioned in the DSM-IV diagnositc criteria, but only in the supporting text - this tends to suggest that it was considered an idea that couldn't be entirely ignored, but wasn't considered useful in diagnosis. Not so credible really...
I ask you to do a moderately simple test: Don't rely on just people's words - you run the risk of getting sucked in by a snake - check some simple facts: There are various figures given for the incidence of transsexualism. The DSM-IV gives 1:30000 (MtF), Conway suggests the figure is closer to 1:3000 - 1:5000. Contact at least 2-3 of the major U.S. SRS surgeons (Meltzer, Bowers, Alter, Wilson, Brassard [Canada]) and enquire how many SRS operations they are undertaking annually. Then, given the number of male births (census data available online), compute your own ratio of (American TS women):(American adult males). See which of the given figures is closer to the mark.
Nb41
BHD - with guys being posited as "Gay, Straight or lying".. what if guys were like electrons? Electrons act like both particles or waves, but at any given time you can only observe one or the other...
I'm not sure what this would make women...
;-)
C.
Nb41,
Thank you for your thorough, thoughtful response.
I do not dismiss the opinions of a person for the sake of their being transsexual, but only that to be transsexual does not mean to be a member of the psychology profession.
To be deeply introspective is not to be narcissistic, but it is in fact to be opposite to narcissism:
http://narcissists-suck.blogspot.com/2008/12/absence-of-introspection.html
Narcissists hate taking long, hard looks at themselves, because then they'd find out they're not as perfect as they think they are. The narcissism that Bailey is pointing out in the Conway/James crowd likely has not to do with the fact they're aware they've felt uncomfortable with their birth sexes, but rather that they may truly have strong sexual motives and are not truly aware of whether they do because they did not take Bailey's tests and they may be trying to push a false image of themselves as a defense. I think that's what Bailey is getting at.
I do have to agree somewhat about Bailey, as there seems to be something dishonest about his theory. Bailey is talking about how MtF transsexuals are really still men and really have brains of men and all, but that despite that we should just call them women to make them feel better. If this is true, Bailey's suggestion seems to be dysfunctional and dishonest.
I will call U.S.-based SRS surgeons to find out the numbers, thank you.
Again, I think it's that FtM's, the intersexed, and the like simply fall out of the scope of BBL theory, not that they don't exist, unless you can find a source where BBL actually say they do not exist.
I don't disregard the studies, but I'm still not 100% sure they can be factored into everything yet, and it seems like there's still rooom for doubt. I am aware BBL has attacked those studies.
Bad hair days,
Thank you. Like the above, it is interesting that BBL has been attacking the physical results. I wonder what could be made of it in the end, though. What types of neurological studies are to be done next?
Thank you both for your responses.
Again, I think it's that FtM's, the intersexed, and the like simply fall out of the scope of BBL theory, not that they don't exist...
I agree with your assessment of the content of BBL theory in this regard, but I see this as a significant problem. If BBL only accounts for some small percentage of all transsexual people, then some other theory is needed for the rest. In this sense, BBL theory *does not* compete with any of the developing body of data pertaining to transsexuals.
Further, given the dubiousness of the distinction between TS women and autogynephiles (both in general and in any specific patient), it seems that any theory that describes and explains the etiology of transsexualism, will necessarily define autogynephilia better then BBL theory itself.
Phrased another way, given that BBL theory does not explain how certain people-that-look-like-transwomen are actually autogynephiles, if autogynephiles are a true distinct group, any explanation of the etiology of transsexualism will contain a way to determine / distinguish autogynephiles (because, as we're assuming, autogynephiles are not transsexuals, so something must be different - if something is not different then the distinction is false).
So the very limits of BBL theory means it is very easily eclipsed by broader explanatory theories.
Bailey is talking about how MtF transsexuals are really still men and really have brains of men and all, but that despite that we should just call them women to make them feel better.
Still, of course, begging the questions: Just *what* makes these 'men' function better in society as women? and.. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, paddles happily in a pond; what benefit is derived by calling it not-a-duck.
If this is true, Bailey's suggestion seems to be dysfunctional and dishonest.
You said it...
A number of people, for whatever reason, instictively react to the mention of transsexualism with an "Oh Yuck"-type response. Strongly red-blooded males often have an issue (to put it mildly) with the thought of 'cutting off their bits'. This is, *snicker*, partly projection, and partly a misunderstanding the patient as a male with the right bits, rather than as a female with extra / inappropriate bits. Even (male) psychiatrists have been known to cross their legs when an MtF patient discusses genital surgery. BBL theory strikes me as the 'official', 'psychological' version of "OMG! WTF! Guys cutting off their bits! [rearranges junk and crosses legs]" mixed with a serve of pragmatism, "If we let them, then at least they don't kill themselves" and a serve of (misguided) pity, "Oh. Imagine having an illness that made you want to cut off your bits (which are of course, infinitely superior to female genetalia, *cough*), what a terrible affliction! These poor people!".
Nb41
Nb41- I think you nailed it.
We must be careful when ascribing motives to others that they'd vehemently deny. Only BBL and co are allowed to do that.
Even if it's patently obvious, and the only question is the extent. Such emotional, visceral reactions can be overcome by reason, after all, and having such motives (as long as there's some patient insight) is not an insuperable barrier to objectivity.
Perhaps one should straight out ask Dr Zucker in particular? Be honest about it all?
Zoe Brain,
"Even if it's patently obvious, and the only question is the extent. Such emotional, visceral reactions can be overcome by reason, after all, and having such motives (as long as there's some patient insight) is not an insuperable barrier to objectivity."
I'm sorry, I do not know what this refers to.
Nb41,
"A number of people, for whatever reason, instictively react to the mention of transsexualism with an "Oh Yuck"-type response. Strongly red-blooded males often have an issue (to put it mildly) with the thought of 'cutting off their bits'. This is, *snicker*, partly projection, and partly a misunderstanding the patient as a male with the right bits, rather than as a female with extra / inappropriate bits. Even (male) psychiatrists have been known to cross their legs when an MtF patient discusses genital surgery. BBL theory strikes me as the 'official', 'psychological' version of "OMG! WTF! Guys cutting off their bits! [rearranges junk and crosses legs]" mixed with a serve of pragmatism, "If we let them, then at least they don't kill themselves" and a serve of (misguided) pity, "Oh. Imagine having an illness that made you want to cut off your bits (which are of course, infinitely superior to female genetalia, *cough*), what a terrible affliction! These poor people!"."
Do male psychiatrists actually do this?
With your other comments, basically you're saying that the neurological studies will eventually go over BBL's head and show that what BBL is talking about is really just correlation, but the sexual drives don't really cause the transsexualism.
Do male psychiatrists actually do this?
It's been reported moderately often *chortle*.
With your other comments, basically you're saying that the neurological studies will eventually go over BBL's head and show that what BBL is talking about is really just correlation, but the sexual drives don't really cause the transsexualism.
Where BBL 'rings true', essentially yes. However it could be that:
The sexual drives and transsexualism have a common cause.
The sexual drives are a result of a patient suppressing / denying their transsexualism (much like comorbid depression).
The sexual drives are actually a misinterpretation/ misrepresentation of the patient's actual feelings, perhaps because the psychiatrist / psychologist genuinely can't think beyond 'a male cutting off their bits' and so 'they must be getting off on it'. (See my earlier comment about "I can't feel arousal unless I see myself as female" (patient) vs. "You are aroused by the thought of yourself as female" (psychiatrist))
If we take the first interpretation, and assume that a) non-transsexual women think of themselves as women in their sexual fantasies (which seems a reasonable assumption, why would they do anything else?) and b) that there is some 'other' cause for transsexuality (i.e. not the sexual drives), then transsexual women are just thinking like other women in their personal sexual fantasies and there's no big deal.
If, on the other hand, we assume that the sexual drives are what's causing the observed transsexuality, then we have the second interpretation - and BBL theory - again leaving us with the question that given BBL theory only describes some transwomen, what describes the rest and what differentiates the two groups?
Nb41
Nb41,
Thank you as always for your response.
"It's been reported moderately often *chortle*."
Source?
"
The sexual drives and transsexualism have a common cause.
The sexual drives are a result of a patient suppressing / denying their transsexualism (much like comorbid depression).
The sexual drives are actually a misinterpretation/ misrepresentation of the patient's actual feelings, perhaps because the psychiatrist / psychologist genuinely can't think beyond 'a male cutting off their bits' and so 'they must be getting off on it'. (See my earlier comment about "I can't feel arousal unless I see myself as female" (patient) vs. "You are aroused by the thought of yourself as female" (psychiatrist))"
I've seen this argument, which is plausible.
"
If we take the first interpretation, and assume that a) non-transsexual women think of themselves as women in their sexual fantasies (which seems a reasonable assumption, why would they do anything else?) and b) that there is some 'other' cause for transsexuality (i.e. not the sexual drives), then transsexual women are just thinking like other women in their personal sexual fantasies and there's no big deal."
Do women really imagine themselves as women and if so how? Do men really do that either? Because, in sex, isn't a person usually focused on the other?
Where is the research on this sort of thing?
SDA
>Because, in sex, isn't a person usually focused on the other?
Thats the male type of sexuality I soppuse. Try some erotic literature aimed at women to learn that they are aroused by different thoughts and fantasies.
When I flirt I often see that men always think about sex the same way they do themself (espacially when it gets to causual sex) and seem to think women are only to ashamed to admit it.
sumptos, you asked, "Do women really imagine themselves as women and if so how?"
Yes they certainly do, or at least one woman of my acquaintance does. She explained to me how, in her view, women's appreciation of porn was different from men's. A man, she explained, sees images of attractive, sexy women and wants to have sex with them, and later when having sex with his partner might close his eyes and imagine he's with one of the women in the images because that's exciting and makes the sex better for him. A woman, on the other hand--or, at least, she herself--sees those same images of attractive, sexy women and wants to be them, or at least to look like them, and later while having sex with her partner may imagine she is one of the women in the images, because feeling attractive and sexy is exciting and makes the sex better for her.
"It's been reported moderately often *chortle*."
Source?
Anecdotal accounts.
Anecdotal accounts of approximately, oh, 100% of all transwomen, in fact.
Not every male medic does this, but most do. In my own experience, I can think of 5 out of 7, and all were supportive. It's an instinctive thing.
It's the same reason why in Vietnam and elsewhere, soldiers sat on their helmets rather than wearing them on their heads, and why the most feared mine the Germans produced in WW II shot a metal rod upwards.
It's a Guy thing. I have the same kind of reaction when FtoMs talk of top surgery. Logically, mastectomy shouldn't be a big deal, but to most women it can be psychologically devastating.
I didn't feel that way before transition BTW.
justme,
"Yes they certainly do, or at least one woman of my acquaintance does. She explained to me how, in her view, women's appreciation of porn was different from men's. A man, she explained, sees images of attractive, sexy women and wants to have sex with them, and later when having sex with his partner might close his eyes and imagine he's with one of the women in the images because that's exciting and makes the sex better for him. A woman, on the other hand--or, at least, she herself--sees those same images of attractive, sexy women and wants to be them, or at least to look like them, and later while having sex with her partner may imagine she is one of the women in the images, because feeling attractive and sexy is exciting and makes the sex better for her."
Really? Like, where is this written down (other than here)? Is there a sexologist somewhere that wrote this down, or something?
Zoe Brain,
It seems that the fear of losing one's private bits that one considers important in some way is common.
Bad hair days,
Do you mean, say, bodice rippers?
> Do you mean, say, bodice rippers?
Huh? Sorry, my schoolenglish isn't enaugh for that term.
While their is no study I know of on that male phallus angst thing, you can easily get yout own experience - just tell someone you have smalltalk with you lost yours during an accident and watch his reaction.
Bad hair days,
"Huh? Sorry, my schoolenglish isn't enaugh for that term."
http://www.antimoon.com/ (which has been referenced somewhat on aebrain.blogspot.com)
"While their is no study I know of on that male phallus angst thing, you can easily get yout own experience - just tell someone you have smalltalk with you lost yours during an accident and watch his reaction."
Ha ha! That joke would work when told by both men and women!
>http://www.antimoon.com/
http://dict.leo.org
was more helpfull. Still dont know what you mean. Spring brake type actions?
Thats a very cultural thing. You might not know it, but in Europe we are not as focused on female breasts, e.g. its very common that women on the beach stay topless without any sexual background.
sumptos, you asked, "Really? Like, where is this written down (other than here)? Is there a sexologist somewhere that wrote this down, or something?"
I don't know, to be honest. It was a private conversation and I didn't ask her for sources. She made it clear it was at least true about herself, and clearly believed (on what basis I don't know) that she wasn't particularly unusual in that.
If she'd had that conversation with a sexologist, who had then written it down somewhere, would that somehow make it more true? If you'd like, I could call myself a sexologist; I am interested in the subject, and as far as I know there are no licencing requirements.
Do women really imagine themselves as women and if so how? Do men really do that either? Because, in sex, isn't a person usually focused on the other?
While one may or may not be thinking about sex at the time one is undertaking it, one can definitely think about sex without undertaking it... Time for a simple thought experiment: Imagine yourself having sex. Now answer the following questions: In your daydream, were you male or female? In real life, are you male or female?
If you can, get some friends to undertake the same experiment. I would predict that in the *vast* majority of cases, the answers to the two questions would match.
Where is the research on this sort of thing?
"Archives of Sexual Behavior" is a good start. Also "Journal of Sexual Medicine" and "Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health".
One slight hassle, is that outside of clinical psychology, you oughta try writing a grant proposal to study sex, particularly as undertaken by humans. :)
Really? Like, where is this written down (other than here)? Is there a sexologist somewhere that wrote this down, or something?
You're correct to question the veracity of personal / oral reports, but what do you think the researchers are using as raw data?
Nb41
Nb41,
"While one may or may not be thinking about sex at the time one is undertaking it, one can definitely think about sex without undertaking it... Time for a simple thought experiment: Imagine yourself having sex. Now answer the following questions: In your daydream, were you male or female? In real life, are you male or female?
If you can, get some friends to undertake the same experiment. I would predict that in the *vast* majority of cases, the answers to the two questions would match."
I see.
""Archives of Sexual Behavior" is a good start. Also "Journal of Sexual Medicine" and "Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health".
One slight hassle, is that outside of clinical psychology, you oughta try writing a grant proposal to study sex, particularly as undertaken by humans. :)"
I wonder how easy it would be to find an article by looking through this.
"You're correct to question the veracity of personal / oral reports, but what do you think the researchers are using as raw data?"
True. Thank you for your response.
Post a Comment